I'm telling you, to know that if my first choice didn't win my second was right there would be amazing.
Yea, hopefully the second round will see more people go to Warren than Biden.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Honestly it annoys me that Iowa wields so much power in primaries. It just leads to candidates exclusively focus on it over the other 49 states
This is probably bullshit for many reasons, not least of which Kerry actually endorsed Biden.
he's clearly our best bet at beating Trump, which is why everyone who knows him well are shitting their pants looking for someone else
The losers cabinet:
Kerry/Clinton 2020
Al Gore for Secretary of State
Bernie Sanders for Secretary of Labor
Beto O Rourke for Housing
Kerry/Clinton 2020
Al Gore for Secretary of State
Bernie Sanders for Secretary of Labor
Beto O Rourke for Housing
The party is probably trying to figure out what to do if Sanders routs Biden earlier than expected, and Biden's funding dries up.
What they need to realize is Bloomberg is their guy, if that happens, and embrace it.
He's obviously not gonna jump in he's just frustrated and running his mouth.
Primaries should definitely take place at the same time.
americans are bad
@ mods besides brazil reading this post: but not really! americans are fine.
This is honestly the most exciting news ive read in recent memory leading up to Iowa.
Hey, Kerry won three Purple Hearts. Who remembers that Jib Jab video?
This country really needs to split the Democratic Party into a Neoliberal and a Dem Socialist one.
This country really needs to split the Democratic Party into a Neoliberal and a Dem Socialist one.
Without changing the electoral systems that would lead to Republican dominance at every level for the far future so no ty
And lose to the Republicans forever.
We'd benefit from a proportional representation system, yes, but it ain't happening.
Once the republicans are gone for good?
Sure.
Right now?
I'd like to win thanks.
User Banned (1 week): metacommentary, ignoring the modpost
The posters in this very thread equating any of the Democrats and their hypothetical Presidencies being no different than another 4 years of Trump and claiming that only Bernie would be a worthwhile alternative just furthers this point.
The privileged out-of-touch echo-chambers these people live in is truly something else.
Good luck competing if you don't already have a shit ton of money in that case.
Then congrats President Bloomberg
Maybe stop telling voters to vote for someone else 🤔
My predictions for tomorrow (in terms of total delegates):
1. Pete
2. Bernie
3. Biden
4. Warren or Klob
I think Bernie will win more votes in total though.
1. Pete
2. Bernie
3. Biden
4. Warren or Klob
I think Bernie will win more votes in total though.
If that's the will of the people the so be it. It makes no sense that Iowa voters are about 5x important as every other state.
I don't really think that's the will of the people, who are these people calling for that besides yourself?.l You would still have candidates focusing on certain states and ignoring others in your case. I mean if you think that either President Bloomberg or someone chosen by big donors winning by default is preferable than more power to you, but it sounds awful. We would have no Barack Obama, We would have no Bill Clinton. A much more sensible proposal would be simply having a more diverse state first or second as well. I mean logically California fits the bill, it is the largest, most diverse state and has the most electoral votes, but somehow I doubt the DNC wants californias preferred pick to sweep early.
Besides winning Iowa and New Hampshire don't guarantee the nom, it isn't like you can only win those and then tank on Super Tuesday whoever wins still has to win over a plurality of the whole party in all of it's diversity.
Last edited:
But I don't WANT to right the ship! I want to LEFT it!!!
In a bid to outflank Sanders on the left, Biden has embraced the ethos of the classic Maoist song "Sailing the Seas Depends on the Helmsman".
I remember it - was a nice little ditty that I can still quite most of to this day.
No, but having two of the whitest states in the nation set the narrative early on is still bad.
If Biden's campaigners think the campaign was poisoned from the start then why did they join????
I think everyone other than pete is pretty spread out
I didn't think about it like that but you are right. The first two states sets the momentum for the rest.
interestingly enough, npr ran some numbers on this back in 2016
if we're going on "most representative of america" (given certain criteria) and not "most representative of the democratic party", the state that should be first is... surprisingly, illinois
https://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/4642...f-iowa-n-h-are-too-white-to-go-first-then-who
(that being said, there are other factors that should be weighed. for example, IA/NH/NV/SC aren't often the homes of presidential candidates, so there's less potential for a home-state bias that might dramatically skew early polls. by contrast, IL clearly would have a problem there. I don't think that really outweighs it being more representative, but I do think there are a lot of potential issues that would need to be brought up were they to change orderings.)
Makes sense to me, large urban area, suburbs, and rural farmland. I know Peoria, Illinois and Muncie, Indiana have a lot of market research conducted there because they're considered to be so average they exemplify small town America.
yeah, I think I was surprised only because it's such a reliably democratic-voting state - I was expecting something a bit more along the lines of OH/PA
(columbus also has a ton of market research done in it, unsurprisingly)
I don't disagree. I would have day 1 be maybe Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina and Colorado. Covering tradition (Iowa), African Americans (N. Carolina) chosen over S carolina because it is more competitive for Dems, Highly educated folks (Colorado) and the Latino population (New Mexico). I tried to choose smaller (relatively) states to make it feasible for smaller campaigns to have a shot.
I mean, I've said this before and I'll say it again, voting someone like Biden in is still almost certainly going to lose the greater war for America's soul. He's not going to do anything to fundamentally change the system other than being to the left of Trump on some issues (which is still often times considerably right leaning considering what Trump is). We're out of time for the slow progress overall. Climate Change is not going to wait. The sick, poor, and/or disenfranchised can no longer afford to wait for systemic change on a much wider scale. America as a whole cannot wait for a sharp opposite reaction to the authoritarian and destructive tendencies of Trump. Return to normalcy is a farcical idea built to play on people's nostalgia for when they didn't have to worry about the world or the systemic problems of capitalism and our many institutions across the board, but it is no longer a reality we can afford.
A milquetoast Democrat that refuses to implement change will not get us anywhere and has a very real chance of just turning future elections back over to Republicans when they fail to address the needs of so many people. I know it's sometimes nice to think of this election cycle as "America's opportunity to come to its sense and appeal to our inner morality as people," but simply put a lot of our electorate doesn't actually care about that. They care if they're having their needs met and having a life to live. If the Democratic party fails to address core issues with our Democracy and our American way of life as it stands today, many of those voters are not exactly going to be willing to embrace the Democratic party moving forward and many will likely gravitate to the next extremist populist of the Republican party that promises them a better life than the one they have.
Sure, any Democratic President will not be as bad as Trump technically speaking. There will be less upfront racism, there will probably be fewer international scandals, and some minor amounts of progress might be made in some areas. But the systemic issues are almost certainly not going to be confronted by the vast majority of the candidates left at this point. If we arrive at a similar end point of 4 more years of Trump, but just with a different suit and tie, or arrive at a conclusion that sets things up for an even worse extremist populist candidate, then we still haven't really made progress on the whole.
Bernie and to some extent Warren (though she often fails to pull in the essential working class portion of the electorate that needs to be at the table for this to work) are the only two on the debate stage who are in any position to actually tackle the core systemic issues. We need that now more than ever and another 4 or even 8 years of stalling within the status quo is not going to help matters at all.
So, once again, any Democratic candidate will be better than 4 years of Trump. That's a set in stone reality, but a President that fails to address the systemic issues of society is also going to be doing damage at this point. I think that's what people refer to in this discussion.
- Status